coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 21 November 2005 Ms M.S. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu) seeking that the loan agreement concluded between her and the applicant be declared null and void. The plaintiff’s statement of claim was served on the applicant on 12 January 2006.
6.  On 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) ordered that the case be transferred to the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u R ijeci).
7.  On 30 September 2011 the Rijeka Municipal Court delivered a judgment ruling for the plaintiff in part.
8.  Following appeals by both parties, on 5 September 2012 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
9.  The proceedings are currently again pending before the Rijeka Municipal Court.
10.  Meanwhile, on 19 March 2009 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Rijeka County Court, complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings.
11.  On 14 May 2009 the Rijeka County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 4,000[1] Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Rijeka Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant’s case within ten months of service of its decision. According to the Government, the County Court’s decision was served on the Rijeka Municipal Court on the same day.
12.  On 31 August 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 October 2009.
4.  The applicant company, Purpian sp. z o.o., is a Polish limited liability company having its registered office in Odolanów.
5.  On 12 November 1997 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against a certain Z. K. for payment.
6.  In 1999 and 2000 six hearings were adjourned due to the applicant company’s absence. Furthermore the hearings scheduled for 10 May and 20 September 2005, 10 October 2006, 20 March 2007, 26 March and 22 April 2008 were adjourned or cancelled on the applicant company’s request.
7.  On 24 July 2008 the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court gave a judgment. Both the applicant company and the other party to the proceedings appealed against the judgment.
8.  By a judgment of 11 February 2010 the Kalisz Regional Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the first-instance judgment.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant company lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). It sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation.
10.  By a decision of 6 January 2005 the Kalisz Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant company PLN 2,000 in compensation.
11.  On 15 April 2009 the applicant company lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act.
12.  By a decision of 26 May 2009 the Kalisz Regional Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the proceedings had been conducted in a correct and timely manner. The court further expressed a view that the length of the proceedings had been largely due to the conduct of the parties, including that of the applicant company.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Adana.
6.  On 14 October 1999 he had cataract surgery in a hospital belonging to the Social Security Agency. Upon discomfort which emerged straight after the operation, he applied to the hospital where he was operated on and found out that the reason for his complaints was that the operation had not been conducted under the necessary hygienic conditions.
7.  On 17 November 2000 he brought a civil case against the Social Security Agency before the Adana 5th Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and claimed damages.
8.  On 23 August 2001 the civil court decided that the case was not within its jurisdiction and sent it to the Adana 2nd Labour Court.
9.  On 1 June 2001 the applicant brought a new case directly before the labour court in claim of damages. The labour court decided that both cases were out of its jurisdiction since they were not of a labour case nature. Pursuant to the Code of civil procedure, the first case was sent to the Court of Cassation for the conflict of jurisdiction between a general civil court and a labour court. Meanwhile the proceedings of the second case before the labour court were suspended until the decision of the Court of Cassation was delivered.
10.  From 21 January 2002 to 3 October 2002 the case was sent from one chamber to another due to the conflict of authority among the chambers of the Court of Cassation.
11.  On 24 April 2003 upon the decision of the Court of Cassation authorizing general civil courts over the case, the two cases were joined before the Adana 5th Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.
12.  On 1 February 2006 the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction rendered its first decision.
13.  On 2 May 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed that decision.
14.  In the course of the proceedings after the Court of Cassation quashed the decision, the Social Security Agency was attached to the Ministry of Health.
15.  On 30 July 2008 the civil court decided that the case was out of its jurisdiction since the other party had become an administrative body. That decision was not appealed by the parties.
16.   On 23 October 2008 upon the decision of the civil court the applicant brought an administrative case against the Ministry of Health requesting damages.
17.  The administrative case was still pending before the Adana 1st Administrative Court at the time of the decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Baku.
5.  On 17 February 1998 the applicant’s husband was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to an apartment in Baku on the basis of an order of the Yasamal District Executive Authority. On 13 March 1998 the applicant’s husband died.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant became aware that the apartment had been occupied by H. and her family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”). According to the applicant, despite her numerous demands, the family refused to vacate the apartment.
7.  In 2007 the applicant lodged a court action with the Sabunchu District Court asking the court to order the relevant authorities to change the documents of the apartment into her name and the eviction of H. and her family from the apartment. On 5 October 2007 the Sabunchu District Court partly granted the applicant’s request. The court held that the defendants had no right to use the apartment and that they unlawfully occupied it and ordered their eviction from the apartment. Concerning the changes in the apartment’s documents, the court held that it was not possible to provide the applicant with the relevant documents as the construction of the building had not yet been terminated. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within one month after its delivery. However, the IDP family refused to comply with the judgment.
8.  In 2008 the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 October 2007. On 16 September 2008 the Yasamal District Court and on 24 November 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request. On 20 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
9.  At the time of the latest communication with the applicant, the judgment of 5 October 2007 in her favour remained unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Split.
5.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant brought a civil action for defamation against the Croatian Radio Television in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu), seeking non-pecuniary damages.
6.  In the period between 20 May 1999 and 19 May 2000 the first‑instance court held seven hearings.
7.  By a judgment of 19 May 2000 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
8.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 21 May 2004 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held three hearings, and on 21 September 2009 delivered a judgement whereby it ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 30,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
10.  Following an appeal by the defendant, on 26 November 2010 the Split County Court reduced the amount of damages payable to the applicant to HRK 20,000. The judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 4 January 2011.
11.  Meanwhile, on 5 November 2007 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Split County Court.
12.  On 18 August 2008 the Split County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 12,500[1] in compensation and ordered the Split Municipal Court to give a decision in her case within six months of the service of its decision. The County Court’s decision was served on the Split Municipal Court on 31 October 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Baku.
5.  In 1994 the applicant’s brother sold his flat to S. and in 1995 S.’s ownership right to the flat was officially registered.
6.  In 1996 the applicant’s brother lodged a court action asking for annulment of the sale contract of 1994 and all subsequent transactions concerning the disputed flat. On 22 May 1997 the Nizami Distric Court terminated the proceedings as the applicant’s brother subsequently withdrew his claims. Upon a request of the applicant’s brother, on 24 June 1997 the Baku City Court quashed the judgment of 22 May 1997 and sent the case for new examination.
7.  On 14 April 1998 the applicant’s brother died and the applicant was recognised by the court as his heir. The applicant asked for the proceedings to be renewed.
8.  In 1999 S. sold the flat to O. and the latter registered his ownership right to the flat.
9.  On 16 August 2001 the Nizami District Court upheld the applicant’s request and declared the sale contracts of 1994 (concluded between the applicant’s late brother and S.) and of 1999 (concluded between S. and O.) and the ownership certificate in O.’s name null and void and ordered the eviction of O. and his family from the flat.
10.  On 14 November 2001 the Court of Appeal changed the judgment of 16 August 2001 in the part concerning O. and his family’s eviction from the flat. The court stated that O. and his family were internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the occupied Fizuli region who had no other accommodation and ordered postponement of the execution of the judgment in the part concerning their eviction until liberation of the Fizuli region from occupation.
11.  On 29 March 2002 the Supreme Court changed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and quashed the part on postponement of the execution.
12.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant was delivered an ownership certificate to the flat.
13.  After the communication of the application to the respondent Government, on 17 December 2009 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced and on 18 December 2009 the enforcement proceedings were terminated.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Đakovo.
5.  On 14 July 2004 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) against insurance company J.O. seeking damages.
6.  On 3 February 2010 that court adopted a judgement for the applicant.
7.  On 22 September 2010 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed an appeal by the defendant and upheld the first-instance judgement. The judgement was served on the applicant’s representative on 6 December 2010.
8.  Meanwhile, on 30 September 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court.
9.  On 30 April 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 2,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court to give a decision in the applicant’s case within six months of service of its decision. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 May 2009.
10.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant appealed against the County Court’s decision in its part concerning the award of compensation. He argued that the compensation that court had awarded him was too low and sought HRK 20,000 instead.
11.  On 30 September 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and awarded him additional HRK 4,000, that is, HRK 6,000[1] in total.
12.  On 21 October 2009 the Zagreb County Court’s decision of 30 April 2009 was served on the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court with a view to deciding the applicant’s case within the time-limit set forth in that decision.
7.  The applicant was born in 1942.
8.  He arrived in Sweden on 19 April 2006 and applied for asylum on the same day. He submitted that he had been approached in his home in Eritrea by men in military uniforms, who had asked him about his sons, since they had apparently deserted from military service. He had stated that he did not know of their whereabouts, but the men had not believed him. He had been imprisoned, during which he had been beaten daily. He had managed to escape after five days, upon which he had immediately left for Sudan without returning home.
9.  On 4 October 2007 the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) rejected the applicant’s request for asylum and ordered his deportation to Eritrea. The Board noted that parents of deserters had reportedly been arrested and forced to either pay bail or serve in their children’s place. However, taking into account that one and a half year had passed since the applicant’s departure and that he had otherwise not been of interest to the authorities, it considered that there was no remaining risk for him. Moreover, his injuries were not deemed to be of such severity as to give reason to grant him a residence permit.
10.  The applicant appealed and added that, following his departure, his wife had been visited by men looking for their sons. She had had difficulties with the military and had subsequently disappeared.
11.  On 11 March 2008 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) upheld the Board’s decision. The court questioned the applicant’s credibility. He had initially claimed that the military had taken his identity card, and later that he had lost it during the journey. However, he had subsequently submitted an identity card, without explaining how he had procured it. He had furthermore given contradictory information regarding the amount of money paid to the smuggler. It was in any event deemed remarkable that he would have been able to keep such a large sum of money during his imprisonment. Regardless of the credibility issue, the court found that he had not made it likely that he was at risk upon returning.
12.  On 3 June 2008 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrations-överdomstolen) refused leave to appeal.
13.  The applicant later claimed that there was an impediment to the enforcement of the deportation order, stating that he was in poor health. On 28 May 2009 the Migration Board found that his medical condition did not constitute an impediment to enforcement.
14.  In a second request for review of the enforcement, the applicant added that his illegal departure from Eritrea and application for asylum abroad marked him as a traitor. On 27 October 2011 the Migration Board found that the request did not refer to any new circumstances giving reason to review the case. On 30 November 2011 the Migration Court upheld the Board’s decision.
7.  The applicants, a woman and her two children, were born in 1975, 1995 and 2004 respectively.
8.  On 21 May 2007 they arrived in Sweden and applied for asylum. The first applicant’s husband and their sons were at the time already in Sweden, where they had applied for asylum in 2005 but had not yet received a final decision in their case. Before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) the first applicant alleged that the main reason why she and her children had left Afghanistan was that her family had been persecuted by the Taliban, with whom her husband had been in conflict for several years. When her husband had left the country, the threats that had formerly been directed against him had instead been aimed against her and her eldest daughter. She further claimed that the situation in Afghanistan, particularly for women, was very difficult. On 23 September 2007, after their asylum application had been rejected by the Swedish authorities, her husband and their two sons had been deported to Kabul. Before the Board the first applicant maintained that she was not aware of their whereabouts after the deportation.
9.  On 22 January 2008 the Migration Board rejected the applicants’ asylum claim and ordered that they be deported to Afghanistan. Concluding that the information given by the first applicant was contradictory and lacking in detail, the Board did not find her story credible. The Board further held that her husband’s asylum claim had been rejected and that there was no reason to make another assessment regarding the individual circumstances in the applicants’ case. While the general security situation prevented the applicants from returning to the province where they had lived before leaving Afghanistan, the Board held that they were able to settle in two other provinces, where the first applicant had previously lived, or in Kabul, where they would reunite with the other family members.
10.  On 30 June 2008 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) upheld the Board’s decision. On 8 September 2008 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal. The deportation order against the applicants thereby acquired legal force.
11.  Subsequently, the applicants applied to the Migration Board for a review of the enforcement of the deportation order, claiming that there were impediments to their enforcement. On 19 November 2008 the Board refused to review the case, finding that no new circumstances warranting a review had been forthcoming. This decision was upheld by the Migration Court on 23 December 2008. Two further requests for review of enforcement were subsequently refused, leave to appeal in the later proceedings being refused by the Migration Court of Appeal on 11 June 2010.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Baku.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of the Baku City Executive Authority’s order of 7 January 1998.
8.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by O. and her family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Gubadly, a region under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
9.  According to the applicant, despite her numerous demands, O. refused to vacate the flat noting that she was an IDP and she had no other place to reside in.
10.  On 1 July 2004 the applicant was delivered an ownership certificate to the flat.
11.  On an unspecified date in 2005, the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of O. and her family from the flat.
12.  On 5 July 2007 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant’s request. The court held that the applicant was the lawful owner of the flat on the basis of the ownership certificate of 1 July 2004 and, therefore, the flat was unlawfully occupied by O. and her family. The court ordered the eviction be conducted once the IDP family was provided with other accommodation by the Sumgayit City Executive Authority. The applicant appealed before the Court of Appeal asking the immediate eviction of the IDP family. On 20 April 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s request and ordered that the IDP family be evicted. On 13 September 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 20 April 2007.
13.  According to the applicant, O. and her family refused to comply with the judgment and the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce it.
14.  After the lodging of the present application before the Court, on 28 October 2008 the applicant sold the flat in question to O. On 26 November 2008 she lodged a request before the Yasamal District Enforcement Department asking that the enforcement proceedings be terminated owing to the resolution of the matter by the parties. On 10 December 2008 the Yasamal District Court terminated the enforcement proceedings in question.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Plovdiv.
6.  On 12 July 2006 he was convicted of theft and sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment. In the period between 16 April and 17 December 2007 he was detained in a low-security prison facility („затворническо общежитие”) in Smolyan, part of Plovdiv Prison.
7.  The applicant submitted that the entirety of his incoming and outgoing correspondence with his lawyers had been monitored by the prison administration. He submitted two envelopes addressed by him to his lawyers, one from the prison facility in Smolyan and one from Plovdiv Prison. Each envelope was marked or stamped as having been monitored by the prison administration. As noted in a letter from the General Directorate of Enforcement of Sentences at the Ministry of Justice submitted by the Government, the prison administration, acting in compliance with section 33 § 1(c) of the Enforcement of Sentences Act of 1969, routinely opened all letters, including those sent to lawyers, save those addressed to certain state bodies or international organisations.
8.  The applicant further submitted that he had not been allowed to contact his lawyer by phone and that his meetings with relatives and lawyers had been held in special premises with a prison officer attending the meeting.
9.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the prison facility in Smolyan had been poor. In particular, the stated that (a) his cell had been small and overcrowded, not equipped with a toilet or a sink; (b) the number of toilets and showers had been insufficient; (c) the food had been of poor quality and insufficient; (d) the heating and ventilation had been insufficient; (e) the level of hygiene in the common areas had been poor; (f) dental services had not been covered by the State; (g) prison officers had often addressed inmates in an offensive way, physical harassment had not been uncommon, and disciplinary punishments had been imposed without proper observance of inmates’ rights.
10.  The applicant never brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damages Act (“the SMRDA”).